亚伯拉罕·林肯(Abraham Lincoln) 就职演说翻译（通用2篇）
亚伯拉罕·林肯(Abraham Lincoln) 就职演说翻译 篇1
亚伯拉罕·林肯（Abraham Lincoln）就职演说
同胞们：
在第二次宣誓就职总统的时候，我不必像第一次那样作长篇的演讲了。第一次就职典礼上，较为详尽地叙述我们要采取的方针和道路，看来是合适与恰当的。现在，在我的四年任期结束之时，有关这场至今仍为举国瞩目与致力的大斗争的每个方面，时时有公开的宣告，因此没有新的内容向各位奉告了。我们的一切都依靠武装力量，这方面的进展，大家知道得和我一样清楚。我相信，大家对此颇感满意和鼓舞。我们对未来抱有很大希望，在军事方面就无庸多作预测。
四年前我初次就职之际，全国思虑都集中在即将爆发的内战之上。大家对内战都怀有恐惧，都设法避免这场内战的发生。当时我在这个讲坛上发表的就职演说，全部内容就是为了不战而拯救联邦。当时城里的叛逆分子却企图不用战争而摧毁联邦，企图通过谈判来瓦解联邦，瓜分国家所有。双方都对战争，但其中一方却宁愿战争也不愿联邦毁灭，于是内战爆发。
我国黑奴占人口八分之一，他们不是普遍分布于全国各地，而是集中在南部。这些黑奴，构成一种特殊而重要的利益。尽人皆知，这种利益迟早会成为战争的起因。叛逆分子不惜发动战争分裂联邦，以达到增大、扩展这种利益、使之永存的目的，政府却除去要求将奴隶制限于原来区域，不使扩大之外，不要求其他任何权利，双方都不曾预料到战争会有这样大的规模，持续这样久，不曾预料到引起冲突的原因在冲突停止前会消失。双方都寻求轻而易举的胜利，不求彻底或惊人的结果。双方信奉同一宗教。敬拜同一上帝，都诉求上帝帮助战胜对方。说来奇怪，竟有人敢于要求公正的上帝帮助自己去榨取别人的血汗；但我们不要去品评他人吧，以免受到别人的评论。双方的祈求都不应得到满足，也没有任何一方得到完全的满足，因为全能的上帝自有主张。“祸哉斯世，以其陷入故也，夫陷人于罪，事所必有，但陷人祸矣。”如果我们把美国的奴隶制当成是上帝必定要降给我们的灾祸，这灾祸已经到了上帝指定期限，他现在要免去这场灾祸了。他把这场可怕的战争降给南北双方，是要惩罚那些带来灾祸的人。笃信耶稣基督的人常把许多美德归于基督，我们难道可以说基督的这些作为，与他的美德相悖吗？我们满怀希望，我们热诚祈祷，愿这场惩罚我们的战争早日过去；但假若天意要这场战争延续下去，直至二百五十年来利用奴隶无偿劳动辛苦积聚下来的财富销毁净尽，直至奴隶在皮鞭下流淌的鲜血用刀剑下的鲜血来偿清，如同三千年前古语所说的那样，我们仍然要称颂上帝的判决是公允合理的。
我们对任何人不怀恶意，对所有人都抱有善心，对上帝使我们认识到的正义无限坚定。让我们努力完成我们正在进行的工作，愈合国家的战争伤痕，关怀战死的烈士及其遗属，尽一切力量争得并维护我国及全世界的正义的、持久的和平。
亚伯拉罕·林肯(Abraham Lincoln) 就职演说翻译 篇2
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States: In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office.“ I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection.It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that--I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend;and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration.I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor.The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves;and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other.To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause ”shall be delivered up“ their oaths are unanimous.Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one.If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done.And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?